"A>B>>others, which is not
quite the same as A>B>others."
No. A+=B is still A>B. The >> thing is irrelevant.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ] On Behalf Of Gervase Lam
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:16 PM
> To: election-methods-elector
Forest,
--- "Simmons, Forest " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I like the modified ER Bucklin Whole version that Kevin and Mike have been
> considering.
I want to say: Although it's interesting that ERBW satisfies FBC and Majority,
I think it differentiates among adjacent ranks so little that st
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:57:33 +0930 Chris Benham wrote in part:
Previously, on Friday, August 8, 2003 I posted a suggested
ranked-ballot PR method that combines Generalized Bucklin and
Condorcet. It wrongly included: "Equal preferences are divided into
equal fractions (whi
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:57:33 +0930 Chris Benham wrote in part:
Previously, on Friday, August 8, 2003 I posted a suggested
ranked-ballot PR method that combines Generalized Bucklin and Condorcet.
It wrongly included: "Equal preferences are divided into equal fractions
(which sum to 1)". I now
